Proof of Immortality, VI

[Fudbucker]

You call for dealing with one issue at a time… however many of your posts that initiate the extended responses that you complain about are in fact lists (map) of incomplete ideas and logical fallacies that, to fully address, require the long post. If you want those that disagree with you to limit it to a topic or two at a time you should also do the same.

In addition your problem statement is incomplete and a strawman and you frequent use language in a very loose way, relying on multiple definitions of non-specific words as it suits your argument. We need to start at the beginning, for there even to be a rational discussion.

What repeatable, scientific observation has been made that is not consistent with the current scientific consensus that consciousness (and self-identity) is a brain function based on physical condition and accumulated experience.

The bolded jumped out at me. Two points:
Science doesn't tell us what the ultimate nature of reality is. It says what electrons do, but doesn't tell us whether those electrons exist in a physical universe independent from us, exist in a simulation, exist as an idea in some god's mind, or exist in a dream. There's no reason why the behavior of a dream-electron should be any different than the behavior of a physical-electron or simulated electron.

Science has done a spectacularly bad job at explaining why moving electrons across synaptic gaps in the right way gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience. Supposing you could make a brain out of water, pumps and valves that is functionally identical to an organic brain, the water-brain should be conscious (I think some poster years back used to argue for conscious rope-brains), and yet it seems ludicrous that a big enough collection of water, pumps, and valves could ponder it's own existence. Someone asserting that rope-brains are conscious (or a whole universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving rocks around) is on the same shaky ground as a person asserting leprechauns exist and only show up when we're not looking.

I was watching a youtube video on the nature of consciousness and someone asserted that panpsychism is all the rage now, and the next day I saw this NBC article: "Is the Universe Conscious?". Science seems to be actually going backward on theories of consciousness.

TLDR: Science can't tell us what the nature of reality is, and science doesn't seem to be a useful tool when it comes to why/how brains are conscious. For examining my own consciousness, no scientific book can compare to my own introspection. You can read about pain all you like, but you'll never know what it is until you feel it yourself.

 

[Darat]

Several posts have been reported for being off-topic, derailing, Rule 12 and Rule 0 breaches. To do a full clean-out will take some time. Whilst waiting for a mod to have time to do such a clean-out I'm placing the thread on moderated status. As ever do not try to continue the on-topic discussions elsewhere on the forum to avoid the moderated status of this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Waterman]

Originally Posted by Waterman
What repeatable, scientific observation has been made that is not consistent with the current scientific consensus that consciousness (and self-identity) is a brain function based on physical condition and accumulated experience.

Science doesn't tell us what the ultimate nature of reality is. It says what electrons do, but doesn't tell us whether those electrons exist in a physical universe independent from us, exist in a simulation, exist as an idea in some god's mind, or exist in a dream. There's no reason why the behavior of a dream-electron should be any different than the behavior of a physical-electron or simulated electron.

I disagree on the severe limitations you have put on what science can tell us about the world. The Scientific Method is a process of making observations, testing those observations to attempt to eliminate bias and drawing provisional conclusions based on those observations. As long as a system behaves in a consistent manner and repeatable tests can be performed science can make inferences about the function of the system even if it doesn’t yet have a mechanism for how that works. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know nothing..

Science has done a spectacularly bad job at explaining why moving electrons across synaptic gaps in the right way gives rise to consciousness and subjective experience. Supposing you could make a brain out of water, pumps and valves that is functionally identical to an organic brain, the water-brain should be conscious (I think some poster years back used to argue for conscious rope-brains), and yet it seems ludicrous that a big enough collection of water, pumps, and valves could ponder it's own existence. Someone asserting that rope-brains are conscious (or a whole universe of conscious beings could be simulated by moving rocks around) is on the same shaky ground as a person asserting leprechauns exist and only show up when we're not looking.

For the purposes of this discussion the nature of the chemistry is not relevant. Just as the angle of the molecules in water don’t matter to estimating how deep a flood is. What has been consistently observed is that the consciousness is a product of a functioning brain (regardless of the mechanism involved) and the self-identity is based on the brain function and accumulated experiences.

It is the claim of the OP that there is something else involved. I am merely asked for what observations (not speculations or theories) lead him to that conclusion.

TLDR: Science can't tell us what the nature of reality is, and science doesn't seem to be a useful tool when it comes to why/how brains are conscious. For examining my own consciousness, no scientific book can compare to my own introspection. You can read about pain all you like, but you'll never know what it is until you feel it yourself.

However the principal point of this discussion is not HOW and WHY (which is I am sure a very interesting and complicated subject) but an argument for a non-corporal soul that has no properties and carries no memories but is somehow reincarnated or returns to a soul pool to merge with other souls and portions injected into new humans as they are created and affects the probability of their existence.

 

[Fudbucker]

I disagree on the severe limitations you have put on what science can tell us about the world. The Scientific Method is a process of making observations, testing those observations to attempt to eliminate bias and drawing provisional conclusions based on those observations. As long as a system behaves in a consistent manner and repeatable tests can be performed science can make inferences about the function of the system even if it doesn’t yet have a mechanism for how that works. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that we know nothing..

I agree, it's a good method and has it's uses, but it's not really equipped to deal with metaphysical issues. What scientific experiment could I run to determine whether this is all a dream or a simulation? There are some tests people are running based on computational restraints we might see in a simulation, and some of the results are interesting, but we'll probably never know whether we're in one or not unless the simulators want us to know.

For the purposes of this discussion the nature of the chemistry is not relevant. Just as the angle of the molecules in water don’t matter to estimating how deep a flood is. What has been consistently observed is that the consciousness is a product of a functioning brain (regardless of the mechanism involved) and the self-identity is based on the brain function and accumulated experiences.

I probably wasn't clear enough. There is a school of thought that if you make something that is functionally identical to an organic brain, it should be conscious, and there are a lot of things you can use to duplicate the workings of a brain: transistors, ropes and pulleys, water and pumps, etc.

It is the claim of the OP that there is something else involved. I am merely asked for what observations (not speculations or theories) lead him to that conclusion.

The OP doesn't make good arguments. It's low-hanging fruit. I seized on your comment because it could be an interesting discussion.

However the principal point of this discussion is not HOW and WHY (which is I am sure a very interesting and complicated subject) but an argument for a non-corporal soul that has no properties and carries no memories but is somehow reincarnated or returns to a soul pool to merge with other souls and portions injected into new humans as they are created and affects the probability of their existence.

I don't agree with the OP's argument. My point is that the scientific method is not useful for certain areas. The existence (or non-existence) of souls is one of those areas. One should be agnostic about it. Do you agree?

 

[Jabba]

Then the hypothesis is wrong.

Keep in mind that "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

Given a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards, it's very unlikely I will be dealt a royal flush. If I am dealt a royal flush, that is not evidence against the hypothesis that this is a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards. If I am dealt two forests, a mountain, a Fireball, a Lightning Bolt, and Sol Ring, and a Shivan Dragon, then it's definitely not a regulation 52 card deck of playing cards.

- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

 

[JayUtah]

I think this is just an issue of finding the right words.

The right words have already been found. There already exists a language in which to express statistical inference and other reasoning. The problem with your argument is not that you can't find the right words, but that you can't deal with the meanings of words that already exist. Hence you are constantly trying to rephrase the argument in newly ambiguous language.

Further, it is endemic to your argument that you must thoroughly understand statistical reasoning, much more so than your critics if you want to prevail. When an argument is made from a position of purported expertise, one way to test that foundation is to determine whether the proponent is conversant in the specialized language of the field he professes, or whether he has to make up his own vocabulary. Advertising that you're groping for words, either in statistics or philosophy, is not a point in your favor.

In re-evaluating an old hypothesis...

No. In Bayes there is no "old" hypothesis. There is only the hypothesis. The probabilities we assign to it may evolve over time, but the hypothesis must remain constant for the method to have any validity.

...based on new info,...

Your model remains vague and equivocal over what you consider data. It appears that you include, in your notion of the data in your model, conclusory and explanatory elements that are not appropriate to that term. The data are observations, not conclusions drawn from the observations, attempts to explain the observation, or any similar sort of interpretation. Specifically, your notion of the data in this model includes elements of a soul -- i.e., elements from your desired hypothesis. That makes your model incorrect.

There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite.

Your model is underconstrained because you simply make up all the values that go into it. You backfill pseudo-scientific and pseudo-mathematical explanations for them, but you made it clear that you assumed the values of these quantities before you reasoned about the factors that affect them. You're post-justifying decisions you already made about how the different terms in the model should behave. That's begging the question.

For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

Your model commits the false-dilemma fallacy. There are many hypotheses in play, and you deal with only two of them. One of them -- yours -- you refuse to specify, ostensibly so it can't be tested. Not all negations of materialism lead to immortality, and keeping your hypothesis vague also keeps it from being proven.

Further, we proved that any hypothesis that requires incarnation is automatically less probable than materialism because it would have to proceed from the materialist hypothesis and add to it other elements that incur their own probability. You have been confronted several times with this refutation. Each time you tell us you think there must be "more to it," but you have never provided anything more.

A comprehensive list of these and other fatal errors was presented to you weeks ago, which you have not addressed.

 

[Hokulele]

For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

Wrong.

 

[godless dave]

- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

And still, "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

 

[jond]

- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
- In re-evaluating an old hypothesis based on new info, the likelihood of the new info -- given the old hypothesis -- is a key variable. There are three (or,two) other variables -- so, whether it affects the probability of the hypothesis, and how it affects the probability, are indefinite. For instance, while an event could be very unlikely to occur -- given the hypothesis -- it could be even more unlikely -- given the complementary hypothesis.

Here's JayUtah's post which you continue to ignore. Now might be a good time to read it, thoroughly, and respond to all the points he raises.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11871278&postcount=3198

 

[Fudbucker]

Wrong.

Not necessarily. In Bayesian epistemology, probabilities of events can be assigned given certain hypotheses. Pr(E/H).

 

[caveman1917]

Further, we proved that any hypothesis that requires incarnation is automatically less probable than materialism because it would have to proceed from the materialist hypothesis and add to it other elements that incur their own probability.

You proved no such thing.

 

[John Jones]

- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words. Hopefully, the following will help.
[...]

You've tried the ploy that your interlocutors are not bright enough to follow you many times.

Don't bother going down that road again.

 

[Belz...]

- I think this is just an issue of finding the right words.

You act as if we're on the first page of the original thread.

No, we've got the words, and the arguments, and the evidence, and you've actually got nothing. At some point you have to realise this.

 

[Waterman]

I agree, it's a good method and has it's uses, but it's not really equipped to deal with metaphysical issues. What scientific experiment could I run to determine whether this is all a dream or a simulation? There are some tests people are running based on computational restraints we might see in a simulation, and some of the results are interesting, but we'll probably never know whether we're in one or not unless the simulators want us to know.

If something has a consistent effect on the world as we experience it, it can be studied using the scientific method. How would you determine / deal with a metaphysical event/thing. How would you know that the effect is real or only imagined? Speculation and imagination are fun and can be interesting but what can you do with it? If we are in a simulation or dream how would that affect your life decisions? How would you pierce the veil?

I probably wasn't clear enough. There is a school of thought that if you make something that is functionally identical to an organic brain, it should be conscious, and there are a lot of things you can use to duplicate the workings of a brain: transistors, ropes and pulleys, water and pumps, etc.

It seems reasonable that a system capable of storing new information, processing that information, and combining it in new and novel ways is capable of becoming conscious provided sufficient complexity. No metaphysics involved.

I don't agree with the OP's argument. My point is that the scientific method is not useful for certain areas. The existence (or non-existence) of souls is one of those areas. One should be agnostic about it. Do you agree?

I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.

 

[Fudbucker]

If something has a consistent effect on the world as we experience it, it can be studied using the scientific method.

Not necessarily.. A being (or programmer) that only affects the world (simulation) when's no one's looking would never be discovered. That doesn't mean the effects wouldn't be there. And, of course, one-time events would be very hard to prove-disprove. For years, we wondered about rogue-waves. Suppose there's a phenomena that only happens once every ten thousand years? It would be very hard to discover.

How would you determine / deal with a metaphysical event/thing. How would you know that the effect is real or only imagined? Speculation and imagination are fun and can be interesting but what can you do with it? If we are in a simulation or dream how would that affect your life decisions? How would you pierce the veil?

Try to communicate with the simulation programmers? I think if it could be discovered for sure that we were in a simulation, the implications would be profound. So, on that level, it's interesting stuff.

It seems reasonable that a system capable of storing new information, processing that information, and combining it in new and novel ways is capable of becoming conscious provided sufficient complexity. No metaphysics involved.

Take a look at that comic I linked to. See if you agree with it.

I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.

I partially agree, except for consciousness. It's always been a "hard problem" and will remain a "hard problem". I don't see science being able to explain why moving electrons around should give rise to subjective experience. Science can explain neuro-correlates, but not why brain-states give rise to mental-states. I'm a dualist on brain/mental states, so it allows a little wiggleroom for bizzare theories to pop up, like panpsychism, integrated-information theory, and whether there's an immaterial part of ourselves.

 

[Hokulele]

Not necessarily. In Bayesian epistemology, probabilities of events can be assigned given certain hypotheses. Pr(E/H).

Not when the even has already happened. Then its probability is, and will always be, 1.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
I will take the position that while I cannot ‘disprove’ the existence of the soul is does not seem necessary to posit their existence to sufficiently explain our existence. As such, it is an unnecessary complication and should be discarded until such time that additional data is collected to warrant reconsideration. I place souls in the same bucket as Thor, Pele, Faries and Krishna they held explanatory power in the prescientific days because little was understood about the nature of the world and how things happened. The more that science pierced the natural world's veil, the less and less there was for the super natural world to do until it was functionally unemployed and probably didn’t exist in the first place despite the fervent hopes/beliefs of many.

Precisely.

Hans

 

[Jabba]

And still, "very unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.

 

[zooterkin]

- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.

Gibberish. Your whole argument is the sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

- No. But, very unlikely here is VERY unlikely, and easily wins out in the Bayesian formula -- if we can dismiss the sharp shooter fallacy, and allow a reasonable possibility that H is not correct.

If we ignore one of the fallacies that is fatal to your claim, then you're right? Is that your argument?

Describe for me again, what is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy and why is it a fallacy?